A decade of faculty development for health professions educators: lessons learned from the Macy Faculty Scholars Program.

Faculty development (FD) programs are critical for providing the knowledge and skills necessary to drive positive change in health professions education, but they take many forms to attain the program goals. The Macy Faculty Scholars Program (MFSP), created by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation (JMJF) in 2010, intends to develop participants as leaders, scholars, teachers, and mentors. After a decade of implementation, an external review committee conducted a program evaluation to determine how well the program met its intended goals and defined options for ongoing improvement.The committee selected Stufflebeam's CIPP (context, input, process, products) framework to guide the program evaluation. Context and input components were derived from the MFSP description and demographic data, respectively. Process and product components were obtained through a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data obtained from participant survey responses, and curriculum vitae (CV).The evaluation found participants responded favorably to the program and demonstrated an overall increase in academic productivity, most pronounced during the two years of the program. Mentorship, community of practice, and protected time were cited as major strengths. Areas for improvement included: enhancing the diversity of program participants, program leaders and mentors across multiple sociodemographic domains; leveraging technology to strengthen the MFSP community of practice; and improving flexibility of the program.The program evaluation results provide evidence supporting ongoing investment in faculty educators and summarizes key strengths and areas for improvement to inform future FD efforts for both the MFSP and other FD programs.

Gender Microaggressions During Virtual Residency Interviews and Impact on Ranking of Programs During the Residency Match.

Background: Microaggressions are one form of gender bias contributing to gender disparities and mistreatment, but their prevalence during virtual residency interviews has not been explored. Objective: To explore applicants' recall of experiencing gender microaggressions during virtual residency interviews and whether these experiences affected programs' rank position on applicants' rank lists. Methods: Fourth-year medical students at a single institution who participated in the 2021 Match were surveyed after submitting their rank lists. Students were surveyed categorically on (1) their recall of the frequency they experienced 17 gender microaggressions during interviews, and (2) how these affected reported ranking of programs on their rank lists. Results: Sixty-one percent (103 of 170) of eligible students responded to the survey. Seventy-two percent (36 of 50) of women experienced at least one microaggression compared to 30% (9 of 30) of men. The largest difference was in the experience of environmental microaggressions, which are demeaning cues communicated individually or institutionally, delivered visually, or that refer to climate (P<.001). Women experienced more microaggressions than men in nonsurgical (P=.003) and surgical specialties excluding obstetrics and gynecology (P=.009). When microaggressions were experienced at 1 to 2 programs, 36% of applicants (26 of 73) reported significantly lowering program ranking, compared to 5% (1 of 19) when microaggressions occurred at more than 5 programs (P=.038). Conclusions: Women applicants experience more microaggressions than men do during nonsurgical and male-dominated surgical specialty residency interviews. Respondents who recalled experiencing microaggressions at fewer programs were more likely to report significantly lowering the rank of those programs compared to those who experienced them at more programs.

Can Incoming Interns Be Entrusted to Recognize Medical Emergencies? Implementation of a Vignette-Based Cross-Cover Assessment.

Background: Interns must recognize urgent clinical situations and know when to seek assistance. However, assessing this skill is challenging. Objective: We explored whether graduating medical students could determine urgency of medical cross-cover scenarios and what factors were associated with this ability. Methods: Sixty senior medical students enrolled in an internal medicine residency preparation course, and 28 experts were invited to take an assessment using 4 clinical vignette handoffs, each with 5 to 6 cross-cover scenarios. Respondents were asked whether they would evaluate the patient at bedside and notify their supervising resident. They were asked to rate their comfort managing the scenario, rate the urgency (1=low, 2=moderate, 3=high), and take a medical knowledge quiz. Student performance was categorized based on stratification of clinical urgency-those who underestimated (fourth quartile), accurately estimated (second and third quartile), and overestimated (first quartile) urgency. We examined differences between groups in medical knowledge, action, and confidence using analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey Honestly Significant Difference test. Results: Fifty-eight students (96.7%) and 22 experts (78.6%) participated. Clear differentiation emerged between students' ability to estimate urgency on the 3-point urgency scale (lowest quartile: 2.15±0.11; mid-quartiles: 2.38±0.07; upper quartile: 2.61±0.10, respectively). Students who underestimated urgency were less likely to notify their supervising resident (P=.001) and less likely to evaluate a patient at bedside (P=.01). There was no difference in quiz score or comfort level. Conclusions: Incoming interns vary in their abilities to recognize urgent scenarios, independent of medical knowledge and confidence.

Histology education in an integrated, time-restricted medical curriculum: Academic outcomes and students' study adaptations.

In an ever-changing medical curricular environment, time dedicated for anatomical education has been progressively reduced. This happened at the University of Michigan Medical School starting in 2016-2017 when preclinical medical education was condensed to one year. Histology instruction remained integrated in organ system courses but reduced to a lecture-only format without scheduling time for laboratory exercises, requiring students to study virtual histology slides on their own time. In accordance with the shortened instructional time, the number of histology examination questions was reduced more than twofold. This study analyzed students' histology examination results and assessed their motivation to learn histology and use of educational opportunities before and after these curricular changes were implemented. Students' motivation to learn histology and their evaluation of histology lectures increased in the new curriculum. However, students devoted less study time to studying histology. Students' cumulative histology examination scores were significantly lower in the new curriculum and the number of students with overall scores <75%, defined as a substandard performance, increased more than 15-fold. Academically weaker students' histology scores were disproportionately more affected. As medical educational strategies, priorities, and curricular frameworks continue to evolve, traditional didactic topics like histology will need to adapt to continue providing educational value to future health care providers.